What happened in Benghazi, and the fact that pleas for additional security were ignored, that is a big deal. Even self-professed democrats in this thread have called the handling of the whole affair so far to be a disgrace. With each day, more bits of data get out, and it looks worse and worse with the passage of time, not better.

How long must you wait before people stop talking about it ? I would imagine it will stop getting cycles on the news outlets when a week can go by without increasingly damning revelations about it stop seeping out into the public domain.

It is only a double standard if you can argue that the Obamafone thread was designed to be a similar distraction from an equally egregious dropping of the ball by the Romney camp. You know, look over here at these dumb Obama supporters, pay no attention to the deaths that happened on Mitt's watch. I'm unaware of anything he did that would come close to ranking up with the Benghazi debacle.

Given the amount of screen time the "binders of women" and "big bird" comments have received by the Obama/Biden ticket during speeches, one would think these two stumbles are on par with what happened in Libya. Clearly they are not the same severity, but it's understandable why they would want to keep those occupying peoples attention.

But you willingly took part in that discussion in the "Obamaphone" thread on Sept 27. Which is 2 weeks prior to me even creating the "Romney Supporter" thread. Good job hypocrite.

The attack in Libya is a tragedy I agree. There is no way I would ever want to see 4 United States Citizens lose their lives over ANYTHING.

I posted that thread a month after the attack in Libya, 10/12. Right after another current event the vice-presidential debate. Exactly how long must we wait until we can change the subject to something other than the attack in Libya?

The thread I linked to above was started on 9/27. How is that thread not any different than this?

Because it wasn't close to a SCANDAL as it is now..

If you recall, the line proffered in those convening two weeks after the 11th were non-stop "The video is the cause of the attack".

If you took the time to read all the Libyan and Benghazi threads, I've been commenting consistently about the issue with no liberal wanting to even delve into the discussion.

Since the 27th - we've found out that the administration has been pervasively lying about the accounts on the ground, the Ambassador's journal was picked up by reporters, that no FBI agents made it to the site of the attack till weeks later, that the Ambassador has sent cables to the administration asking for security help and were denied, and we had a congressional hearing on the events discrediting the administration's account and now the CIA is saying the Libyan CIA station chief sent a cable stating it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours.

It snowballed from may have been a run-of-the-mill tragedy, that no one was paying attention to, to a full fledge Watergate-level Cover-up.

xbook what are your reasons for supporting the President for reelection?

Well in no particular order, here are a few:

Supports Same Sex Marriage
Passed Health Care Reform
Passed the Stimulus
Passed Wall Street Reform
Followed through in ending the War in Iraq
Followed through on Eliminating Osama bin laden
Provided the Auto industry with the bailouts, and instituted cash for clunkers
Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell
Increased support for Veterans
Isn't using the advisors Bush used to guide his policy, like Rmoney is

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgrovr

Because it wasn't close to a SCANDAL as it is now..

If you recall, the line proffered in those convening two weeks after the 11th were non-stop "The video is the cause of the attack".

If you took the time to read all the Libyan and Benghazi threads, I've been commenting consistently about the issue with no liberal wanting to even delve into the discussion.

Since the 27th - we've found out that the administration has been pervasively lying about the accounts on the ground, the Ambassador's journal was picked up by reporters, that no FBI agents made it to the site of the attack till weeks later, that the Ambassador has sent cables to the administration asking for security help and were denied, and we had a congressional hearing on the events discrediting the administration's account and now the CIA is saying the Libyan CIA station chief sent a cable stating it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours...

So what exactly is the statute of limitations on bringing up anything critical of Romney or his supporters?

I was trying so hard not to respond to this thread but I feel like I wouldn't be doing my duty as a conservative had I not.

On the Libya issue... The fact that 4 Americans were killed overseas in a country with a tremendous amount of civil unrest is a shame and is truly sad and unfortunate. However it should be noted that Americans are killed just about every week in these numbers serving the country overseas. To isolate this one event as a failure of administration's foreign policy is probably not going to change the way liberals think or vote.

I guess if we look at the facts; the requests for additional security, the fact that there was tremendous unrest, and the fact that it was the anniversary of the worst terror attack against the US in our history, we can certainly argue that more assistance should have been given to that embassy. But couldn't the left legitimately argue that the nearly 3000 victims killed on 9/11 was a failure of a magnitude 750 times greater than this single incident? And despite the "failure" of that administration to protect those 3000 Americans (on domestic soil, and not half way across the world), the president who presided during that event won a second term. I truly believe that was as a result of the way the country came together for a common cause.

Full disclosure, I am a conservative, and I believe that for the most part (with a few exceptions) the current administration has dealt with foreign policy at an exceptional level. Both sides will argue back and forth about points that best serve their interests... But ultimately this gets us nowhere as a nation.

Unfortunately both sides are so divisive right now, perhaps had the 4 Americans killed this year been 4000, and had it happened on US soil... We might be able to put politics aside again to move the country in a positive direction, get Americans back to work, continue on a path of recovery, and stop using terms like 47% and 1%.

Im a proud american, and whether obama or romney is my president I will always be a proud american. Rant over....

I was trying so hard not to respond to this thread but I feel like I wouldn't be doing my duty as a conservative had I not

What's your definition of conservative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alynM3

On the Libya issue... The fact that 4 Americans were killed overseas in a country with a tremendous amount of civil unrest is a shame and is truly sad and unfortunate. However it should be noted that Americans are killed just about every week in these numbers serving the country overseas. To isolate this one event as a failure of administration's foreign policy is probably not going to change the way liberals think or vote.

Well, it was John McCains idea, that we do what we did in Lybia, so thank goodness he didn't become president?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alynM3

I guess if we look at the facts; the requests for additional security, the fact that there was tremendous unrest, and the fact that it was the anniversary of the worst terror attack against the US in our history, we can certainly argue that more assistance should have been given to that embassy. But couldn't the left legitimately argue that the nearly 3000 victims killed on 9/11 was a failure of a magnitude 750 times greater than this single incident? And despite the "failure" of that administration to protect those 3000 Americans (on domestic soil, and not half way across the world), the president who presided during that event won a second term. I truly believe that was as a result of the way the country came together for a common cause.

The so-called freedom fighters that toppled gadaffi were mostly foreigners, who had just come back from fighting americans in Iraq, and Afghanistan. So, what did you expect?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alynM3

Full disclosure, I am a conservative, and I believe that for the most part (with a few exceptions) the current administration has dealt with foreign policy at an exceptional level. Both sides will argue back and forth about points that best serve their interests... But ultimately this gets us nowhere as a nation.

We'll find out the consequences of what they are currently doing long after they have all left office. Kindda how we found out it was a bad idea to support bin Laden, and company against the solviets, in Afghanistan, during regan's administration.

There are dumb people on both sides. A thread that devolves into "Let's see who's party has the stupidest people" is a thread begotten by stupid people.

The biggest scandal this side of Watergate is upon us with Benghazi and the assassination of our Ambassador, a topic mind you no Democrat wants to even get into the facts are so bad against this Administration, that the focus is on idiot voters outside of a debate??

Liberals would be foaming at the mouth had GWB:

Failed to protect our Embassy on the anniversary of 9/11

Let Al'Queada become resurgent in North Africa and kill a U.S. Ambassador for the first time in 30 years.

Lied about the root cause being a video that 19 people saw when it came out 6 months ago

Deny funding security for the Libyan Ambassador, while at the same time funding green cars for another Embassy

Go on 2 fund raisers then do Letterman the next day of the attack

Miss half of his Intelligence Briefings leading up to the attack.

But nevermind... lookey-here at this idiot Romney voter.

US embassies are bombed, and burned to the ground, regularly. Take the sudan for instance. Why would the US keep on rebuilding their embassy there, after it's been suicide bombed, like 10 times, already. Instead of trying to get manipulated by two guys in suits, who have no idea how to run a country, why not ask yourself: why is it always the US that gets it's embassy messed up? Are there logical reasons why those who hate us do?

Do you have anything to say in reply to my commentary? I was hoping you would. I did not intend to end discussion outright with my post. I realize, however, it is easier to have an opinion about something you don't know about than to actually have a discussion about it.

I don't think it's the president who is pushing "main street vs wall street". A good number of people had massive amounts of their wealth wiped out by the financial collapse in '08. The sentiment across this nation about wall street has come from that collapse. Look at the occupy movement, he didn't take part, or organize those demonstrations. Those were protests organized by citizens. Those were rallies that expressed how a number of our citizens felt.

Him saying the taxes at the top need to be raised from 35% to 39%, isn't class warfare, it isn't wealth redistribution, its just higher taxes to pay for bills we have run up. There wasn't class warfare n the 90's when the tax rates were at 39%. In fact I recall the nation doing rather well financially. Too bad we can't find a new industry to make tons of money from like the dot com bubble.

I don't think President Obama is trying to vilify the financial sector in a similar way to Jews in Nazi Germany. That statement is a bit of a stretch.

I don't think it's the president who is pushing "main street vs wall street". A good number of people had massive amounts of their wealth wiped out by the financial collapse in '08. The sentiment across this nation about wall street has come from that collapse. Look at the occupy movement, he didn't take part, or organize those demonstrations. Those were protests organized by citizens. Those were rallies that expressed how a number of our citizens felt.

Him saying the taxes at the top need to be raised from 35% to 39%, isn't class warfare, it isn't wealth redistribution, its just higher taxes to pay for bills we have run up. There wasn't class warfare n the 90's when the tax rates were at 39%. In fact I recall the nation doing rather well financially. Too bad we can't find a new industry to make tons of money from like the dot com bubble.

I don't think President Obama is trying to vilify the financial sector in a similar way to Jews in Nazi Germany. That statement is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure exactly how the rationalization works in your head, but I do know that it makes no sense. When you increase taxes more on one group and lower it for another, how is this not "redistributing wealth"? That's exactly what it is, you just don't want it to be branded that way. Even more money is coming out of one group to go to a government that exists for the benefit of everyone, and less money is coming out of another group to go to a government that exists for the benefit of everyone.

"Wealth" is a word that is more often associated with the higher tax bracket, so when you are taking more money from that bracket and less from others, you are re-distributing the burden that one group is shouldering.

Do you think that the people that are paying those higher bills see it like you do, that it's just "paying higher taxes to pay for the bills that we have run up?"

Who has been running up those bills during the last 4 years, I forget? Oh, yea, something to do with George Bush, how soon I forget.

I don't think it's the president who is pushing "main street vs wall street". A good number of people had massive amounts of their wealth wiped out by the financial collapse in '08. The sentiment across this nation about wall street has come from that collapse. Look at the occupy movement, he didn't take part, or organize those demonstrations. Those were protests organized by citizens. Those were rallies that expressed how a number of our citizens felt.

Him saying the taxes at the top need to be raised from 35% to 39%, isn't class warfare, it isn't wealth redistribution, its just higher taxes to pay for bills we have run up. There wasn't class warfare n the 90's when the tax rates were at 39%. In fact I recall the nation doing rather well financially. Too bad we can't find a new industry to make tons of money from like the dot com bubble.

I don't think President Obama is trying to vilify the financial sector in a similar way to Jews in Nazi Germany. That statement is a bit of a stretch.

I think you're completely correct xbook. When Obama issued temporary exemptions from Obamacare to large corporations like McDonalds and didnt even consider helping my family's small business, that has been built from the ground up in the poor side of my city 30 years ago (older than me), he was pretty clear about his beliefs.

I think you're completely correct xbook. When Obama issued temporary exemptions from Obamacare to large corporations like McDonalds and didnt even consider helping my family's small business, that has been built from the ground up in the poor side of my city 30 years ago (older than me), he was pretty clear about his beliefs.

Maybe your family business should think about providing benefits for their employees.

Maybe your family business should think about providing benefits for their employees.

Sure! it would only result in us likely going out of business and everyone losing the job they currently hold. Not to mention the service we provide is very important. I dont bring up what it is because it shouldnt be about merit. I say going out of business because it would hardly be worth the cost.

My family has a small business too. Somehow my father has figured out a way to pay his employees a decent wage and benefits that include health care.

Obviously I dont know what line of business your family is in, but I do know how financially successful McDonalds is, how deep their pockets are. If your father's small business can afford to pay benefits, then certainly McDonalds can afford it also, and yet they are exempt from being mandated to do so like your father will be once everything is in place.

You must be outraged, comparing the relative wealth of these 2 entities; it's really no different at all than some rich guy like Romney paying half the effective tax rate of his comparatively poor secretary, after all. Maybe if a champion of the middle class gets into power, that unbalance can be rectified.